5 ms·

> I was 13, at 11am I watched TV and saw a music clip where the content was 2 people fucking and smiling while doing so. They were having fun. I hope we can ha

> I was 13, at 11am I watched TV and saw a music clip where the content was 2 people fucking and smiling while doing so. They were having fun. I hope we can have a civil disagreement on this, without personal resentments. This is indeed freedom, and I don't approve of violent and repressive regimes to change people's behavior. Yet, this is not positive from my point of view. Doing this makes me closer to animals, farther from human. Humans have the freedom to live different from animals. A tiger simply don't think whether the way it lives and kills prey is ethical. Humans can and do. Animals don't have intimacy. They just do their stuff wherever they are. Humans have the freedom to look for and build intimacy. So, although what you described is indeed freedom, it's not the behavior I want for myself. I wouldn't promote it, because it goes against the direction I would be happy to see other humans moving. And I wouldn't like to live in places that go against it as well. That's just my personal freedom of thinking and judging what I see, not that I'll negate it by forcing others to live my way.

philpem 4y ago
If only more people were able to 'agree to disagree'.
dalbasal 4y ago
I disagree entirely. First, the notion that someone somewhere in society doing porn is bad for the society itself. The desire to shave off societies' "stray hairs" is deeply immoral. It has always has been, but that does not make it right. Second, I strongly disagree that carefree attitudes towards sex/nudity is automatically dehumanising, animalistic or objectifying. Sexuality, the human body, etc. This stuff is deeply human. See: 100 thousand years of art history. Last... what is this animal-human dichotomy anyway. Humans are animals. Is childbirth or breastfeeding "farther from human and closer to animal?" These are as viscerally mammalian as key parties on a Wednesday.
- rmbyrro 4y ago
  Hey, thanks for adding more perspective to the discussion. I think these are points to meditate on. Clarifying, I didn't mean to express animal/human as a dichotomy. I see it more as a spectrum. We surely have a LOT in common with animals, but it's also evident that we have the freedom to face everything we do in a different way. Some animals will stop feeding their cubs to concentrate only on the strongest one. They will also stop feeding a cub if it's anomalous (i.e. physiological malformation). On this matter, humans used to behave exactly as animals in ancient Greece (i.e. in Sparta). But we chose to live in a better way. We chose it is superior to use our faculties and ingenuity to be able to feed typical babies without sacrificing the atypical ones. So, yes, for sure, we feed our babies. But we don't have to do it the same way as animals. Animals evolve slowly, pushed by nature. Humans can decide to evolve by their own volition. That's where I draw a line between humans and other animals. Perhaps one day we will have evolved to deserve our own kingdom. As we behave right now, I agree with you that we're still much closer to the animal kingdom than anything superior...
  - trasz 4y ago
    Your argument is fine as advocacy for contraception, abortion and sexual health in general, but I don’t see how it’s related to nudity. Especially given that the problems with nudity often correlate with problems with remaining sexual health aspects, ie are being promoted by institutions that equate human sexuality with that of cattle, namely the Catholic Church.
  - dalbasal 4y ago
    How do you decide to designate something as more animalistic or human. Is is caring for children animal or human? Being socially pleasant? What makes attending a naturist summer camp animalistic? FWIW, the majority of recent, western naturist subcultures came from rationalist origins... a sort of late enlightenment movement. They pondered why we behave as we do, and rejected rote knowledge. IE, they thought we culturally avoid nudity today just because we avoided it yesterday. It's a thoughtless, irrational habit. Being rational, thoughtful and highly evolved beings, naturalists decided they don't have to keep up pointless habits. Humans can decide to evolve by their own volition, their own rational conclusions. This is pretty closely related to humanist thought broadly. So, why is naturism more animal than human? More importantly (to me), how can mindless adherence to tradition, custom, religion or habit possibly represent "choosing to use our superior faculties and ingenuity" or "evolving by our own volition." it seems to me that conscious, and free choice represents those things much better.
    - rmbyrro 4y ago
      > How do you decide to designate something as more animalistic or human That is actually quite a good question. I haven't thought about it thoroughly to reduce into an objective way. Will work on doing that in the future. This makes me think that the differences I perceive today are more of an intuition or an unconscious mental process. Thanks for engaging in the discussion! ;)
  - fellowniusmonk 4y ago
    fwiw, here is how I loosely think about the problem: Humans are both 100% animal and 100% human. There is no dichotomy. A human acting "as an animal" is doing a maximally human thing. A human acting as a "civilized" person is also maximally human. Choosing not to play the game via "suicide" and choosing to stay in the game to see where it leads via "not suiciding" are both maximally human decisions. The most fucked up but also a maximally human expression is to try to enforce your chosen / memetically inculcated views of "acting human" on other humans. Forcing others whom you have never met into your is/ought for "reasons". It's fucked up because the coda one chooses to enforce shaves the weirdness of humanity off (being bullied for liking computers in the 80s slowed the rate of human computer adoption) in an attempt to socially decrease the range of acceptable expressions thus narrowing the global tree of human exploration and expression.
speed_spread 4y ago
I believe what OP meant is that there was no media censorship other than political.
- credit_guy 4y ago
  And I think the responder is arguing that some media censorship is consistent with the concept of freedom. My freedom to swing my fist ends where your nose begins, the saying goes. I don't like to turn on the TV and get porn content, and especially I don't like my children to be exposed to that content. I'm not opposed to porn content to exist, as long as it is somehow ringfenced from the access of minors. A majority of the population in the US agrees with this stance. Putting porn out in the open is like swinging a fist in their nose. It's not freedom, it's aggression. If this argument feels unconvincing to you, just replace "porn" with "Holocaust denying propaganda", and read it again.
  - kugla 4y ago
    Comparing 'Holocaust denying propaganda' with healthy sexual activity (this is what OP is talking about) explains a lot about US puritanism.
  - orwin 4y ago
    I do feel 'porn' as it is understood now is vastly different than what was talked about in the og comment. I've seen porn and I've seen videos of people faking sex on tv as a teenager (erotic movement and nudity, not allow under 16 in my country at the time). The original comment was probably talking about the second one, where the erotism come from the touch, eyes and behavior (and genitalia and boobs, tbh). I agree that most pornography I've seen was too violent and/or disturbing to be on tv(I'm not a consumer, never was really, but i think in my group of friends, Rick roll included porn gif/videos). Erotica however, i wouldn't bat an eye even if showed during the day.
  - speed_spread 4y ago
    Although lacking nuance, your point is clear and there was no need for that dubious holocaust switcheroo you did at did the end. Keep in mind that there is a vast zone between showing a couple holding hand and random people straight out fucking. What's missing on TV and the Internet these days are tasteful and varying depiction of people expressing their love in wholesome ways. People need references as to what is normal and not shameful. Banning _every_ depiction of physical emotional engagement is certainly not the way to go.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
2143 4y ago
Disagree. You need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. What's right from a human's point of view may not necessarily be right from nature's point of view. > A tiger simply don't think whether the way it lives and kills prey is ethical. Even thinking about whether a tigers' behavior is ethical is missing the point. Tigers do what they do. Accept it. It's not "wrong". > Animals don't have intimacy. They just do their stuff wherever they are. Depends on the animal. Elephants tend to live in close-knit families. You should go observe a bird (such as a crow) feeding its young one. Such a lovely sight. > it's not the behavior I want for myself. I wouldn't promote it, because it goes against the direction I would be happy to see other humans moving You've been conditioned to think that that's a better way to live. It may not be. Here's what we "civilized" humans have collectively done: 1. Wrecked nature and have already caused much damage. 2. Kill animals for sport/entertainment ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (Tigers hunt for survival!) 3. Colonized and plundered places and were brutal to the natives of those places. 4. Wars. 5. Even if not a colonialist — some humans have killed other humans, and many others have hatched plans to make others' lives miserable. You see this across the world. Wearing a tuxedo doesn't mean they're good for the world. Think about it this way — the world would be a better place (combined, for the entire life on Earth) if there were no humans at all. Naturists are the least of the world's problems.

philpem 4y ago

If only more people were able to 'agree to disagree'.

dalbasal 4y ago

I disagree entirely. First, the notion that someone somewhere in society doing porn is bad for the society itself. The desire to shave off societies' "stray hairs" is deeply immoral. It has always has been, but that does not make it right. Second, I strongly disagree that carefree attitudes towards sex/nudity is automatically dehumanising, animalistic or objectifying. Sexuality, the human body, etc. This stuff is deeply human. See: 100 thousand years of art history. Last... what is this animal-human dichotomy anyway. Humans are animals. Is childbirth or breastfeeding "farther from human and closer to animal?" These are as viscerally mammalian as key parties on a Wednesday.

rmbyrro 4y ago
Hey, thanks for adding more perspective to the discussion. I think these are points to meditate on. Clarifying, I didn't mean to express animal/human as a dichotomy. I see it more as a spectrum. We surely have a LOT in common with animals, but it's also evident that we have the freedom to face everything we do in a different way. Some animals will stop feeding their cubs to concentrate only on the strongest one. They will also stop feeding a cub if it's anomalous (i.e. physiological malformation). On this matter, humans used to behave exactly as animals in ancient Greece (i.e. in Sparta). But we chose to live in a better way. We chose it is superior to use our faculties and ingenuity to be able to feed typical babies without sacrificing the atypical ones. So, yes, for sure, we feed our babies. But we don't have to do it the same way as animals. Animals evolve slowly, pushed by nature. Humans can decide to evolve by their own volition. That's where I draw a line between humans and other animals. Perhaps one day we will have evolved to deserve our own kingdom. As we behave right now, I agree with you that we're still much closer to the animal kingdom than anything superior...
- trasz 4y ago
  Your argument is fine as advocacy for contraception, abortion and sexual health in general, but I don’t see how it’s related to nudity. Especially given that the problems with nudity often correlate with problems with remaining sexual health aspects, ie are being promoted by institutions that equate human sexuality with that of cattle, namely the Catholic Church.
- dalbasal 4y ago
  How do you decide to designate something as more animalistic or human. Is is caring for children animal or human? Being socially pleasant? What makes attending a naturist summer camp animalistic? FWIW, the majority of recent, western naturist subcultures came from rationalist origins... a sort of late enlightenment movement. They pondered why we behave as we do, and rejected rote knowledge. IE, they thought we culturally avoid nudity today just because we avoided it yesterday. It's a thoughtless, irrational habit. Being rational, thoughtful and highly evolved beings, naturalists decided they don't have to keep up pointless habits. Humans can decide to evolve by their own volition, their own rational conclusions. This is pretty closely related to humanist thought broadly. So, why is naturism more animal than human? More importantly (to me), how can mindless adherence to tradition, custom, religion or habit possibly represent "choosing to use our superior faculties and ingenuity" or "evolving by our own volition." it seems to me that conscious, and free choice represents those things much better.
  - rmbyrro 4y ago
    > How do you decide to designate something as more animalistic or human That is actually quite a good question. I haven't thought about it thoroughly to reduce into an objective way. Will work on doing that in the future. This makes me think that the differences I perceive today are more of an intuition or an unconscious mental process. Thanks for engaging in the discussion! ;)
- fellowniusmonk 4y ago
  fwiw, here is how I loosely think about the problem: Humans are both 100% animal and 100% human. There is no dichotomy. A human acting "as an animal" is doing a maximally human thing. A human acting as a "civilized" person is also maximally human. Choosing not to play the game via "suicide" and choosing to stay in the game to see where it leads via "not suiciding" are both maximally human decisions. The most fucked up but also a maximally human expression is to try to enforce your chosen / memetically inculcated views of "acting human" on other humans. Forcing others whom you have never met into your is/ought for "reasons". It's fucked up because the coda one chooses to enforce shaves the weirdness of humanity off (being bullied for liking computers in the 80s slowed the rate of human computer adoption) in an attempt to socially decrease the range of acceptable expressions thus narrowing the global tree of human exploration and expression.

speed_spread 4y ago

I believe what OP meant is that there was no media censorship other than political.

credit_guy 4y ago
And I think the responder is arguing that some media censorship is consistent with the concept of freedom. My freedom to swing my fist ends where your nose begins, the saying goes. I don't like to turn on the TV and get porn content, and especially I don't like my children to be exposed to that content. I'm not opposed to porn content to exist, as long as it is somehow ringfenced from the access of minors. A majority of the population in the US agrees with this stance. Putting porn out in the open is like swinging a fist in their nose. It's not freedom, it's aggression. If this argument feels unconvincing to you, just replace "porn" with "Holocaust denying propaganda", and read it again.
- kugla 4y ago
  Comparing 'Holocaust denying propaganda' with healthy sexual activity (this is what OP is talking about) explains a lot about US puritanism.
- orwin 4y ago
  I do feel 'porn' as it is understood now is vastly different than what was talked about in the og comment. I've seen porn and I've seen videos of people faking sex on tv as a teenager (erotic movement and nudity, not allow under 16 in my country at the time). The original comment was probably talking about the second one, where the erotism come from the touch, eyes and behavior (and genitalia and boobs, tbh). I agree that most pornography I've seen was too violent and/or disturbing to be on tv(I'm not a consumer, never was really, but i think in my group of friends, Rick roll included porn gif/videos). Erotica however, i wouldn't bat an eye even if showed during the day.
- speed_spread 4y ago
  Although lacking nuance, your point is clear and there was no need for that dubious holocaust switcheroo you did at did the end. Keep in mind that there is a vast zone between showing a couple holding hand and random people straight out fucking. What's missing on TV and the Internet these days are tasteful and varying depiction of people expressing their love in wholesome ways. People need references as to what is normal and not shameful. Banning _every_ depiction of physical emotional engagement is certainly not the way to go.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

2143 4y ago

Disagree. You need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. What's right from a human's point of view may not necessarily be right from nature's point of view. > A tiger simply don't think whether the way it lives and kills prey is ethical. Even thinking about whether a tigers' behavior is ethical is missing the point. Tigers do what they do. Accept it. It's not "wrong". > Animals don't have intimacy. They just do their stuff wherever they are. Depends on the animal. Elephants tend to live in close-knit families. You should go observe a bird (such as a crow) feeding its young one. Such a lovely sight. > it's not the behavior I want for myself. I wouldn't promote it, because it goes against the direction I would be happy to see other humans moving You've been conditioned to think that that's a better way to live. It may not be. Here's what we "civilized" humans have collectively done: 1. Wrecked nature and have already caused much damage. 2. Kill animals for sport/entertainment ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (Tigers hunt for survival!) 3. Colonized and plundered places and were brutal to the natives of those places. 4. Wars. 5. Even if not a colonialist — some humans have killed other humans, and many others have hatched plans to make others' lives miserable. You see this across the world. Wearing a tuxedo doesn't mean they're good for the world. Think about it this way — the world would be a better place (combined, for the entire life on Earth) if there were no humans at all. Naturists are the least of the world's problems.